July 31, 2010

Timothy McCollough freely admits that he stopped making payments on his Chase Manhattan credit card in 1999. He says he did not have the means to pay after he was disabled by a head injury that cost him his job.

The nice thing about the passage of time is that, eventually, all that stuff you did - you know what I'm talking about - gets to just be something that happened a long time ago that nobody cares about any more.

In 2007, he was sued a second time over the debt, and this time the suit contended that he owed significantly more: $3,816 in credit card debt, plus $5,536 in interest and $481 in legal fees. As he did the first time, Mr. McCollough sent a handwritten note to the court explaining that the statute of limitations on the debt had passed... [C]ollectors are not supposed to file lawsuits to pursue out-of-statute debt, some consumer lawyers say it happens routinely.

Well, maybe not. But at least there's some good news for bank shareholders, who are recovering significant amounts of money from losses written-off long ago:

[On an] $8 million portfolio of Bank of America credit card accounts...the expected asking price is $16,000, or two-tenths of a cent for every dollar owed.

Oh. There's something unseemly about that: like a banker in a fine suit, groveling in the dirt for a dropped penny. Someone at Bank of America is paid a good salary to do this. If I was that person - or that person's boss - I'd find this story rather embarrassing. But then, I don't work in banking.

Back on the Well (in the stone age of the Internet), there was a tradition of having an introductions thread when a new forum was opened. The hosts and the regular users would introduce themselves and invite any new members to do likewise. The nice thing about it was that even if you already knew someone in one context, you could still learn something about them in another.

Now, blogs are different, they have much less shared context, and group blogs don't get to have nice clean beginnings. And commenters may be pseudonymous or anonymous, and we have to keep in mind that anything on the open Internet lasts forever. But I think it's worth a try, and since I seem to be stinking up the placesettling in nicely I thought this might be a good time.

The format is pretty simple: Say who you are and where you're coming from. Tell us why you're here. We'll do this again sometime, so don't worry about getting it all out at once - this isn't your life story.

This would also be a good time to break the ice if you're a reader who's never commented, either because you were too shy or because you didn't feel you had anything to say. Just say hello.

July 30, 2010

I'm often surprised to read or hear from Americans who believe that the US has fallen behind other industrialized countries in output or standard of living. Sometimes people even believe that China is about to eclipse the US in standard of living.

Now, anyone who's read what I have to say knows that I don't think everything is hunky-dory in the US, but I do think it's important to understand that the US has had - and continues to have - a real PPP per-capita GDP that is 20-30% higher than that in other large industrialized countries. "Real" as in adjusted for inflation; "PPP" as in adjusted for different costs of living in different countries; "per-capita" as in adjusted for population growth.

And so I say "wealthiest" even though a handful of countries have a higher per-capita GDP; all of those countries have a population under 5 million, and all are either oil or banking states. The feat in the US is that this standard of living is provided to a population of 300 million.

I think the advantage is based on three persistent factors: first, the enormous land area of the US and relatively low land & house prices; second, the huge natural resources of the US in farmland, minerals, and forests; third, the gigantic size of the US internal market and its extreme homogeneity in language and taste.

There are real problems with income distribution, insecurity, access to healthcare, and indebtedness in the US. It is a problem when 19% of households have zero net worth. But America is still an astonishingly wealthy nation. "We can't afford it" has no place here.

The ADL on the contemplated expansion of the mosque near the World Trade Center:

We regard freedom of religion as a cornerstone of the American democracy, and that freedom must include the right of all Americans – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths – to build community centers and houses of worship.

We categorically reject appeals to bigotry on the basis of religion, and condemn those whose opposition to this proposed Islamic Center is a manifestation of such bigotry.

However, there are understandably strong passions and keen sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center site. We are ever mindful of the tragedy which befell our nation there, the pain we all still feel – and especially the anguish of the families and friends of those who were killed on September 11, 2001.

The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process. Therefore, under these unique circumstances, we believe the City of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found.

I've read this about five times now, and I still don't see how they get from the premises in paragraphs 1 and 2 to the conclusions in paragraph 4.

The third paragraph is the weakest of bridges in this regard, not only because paragraph 4 betrays the principles extolled in the first two (though that does sort of give the game away), but for the simple fact that many of the families and friends of those killed believe that the mosque would be a testament to American values triumphing over ignorance.

Myself included. Not to mention, undoubtedly, some of the Muslim victims' friends and loved ones. They count too.

After all, why do some passions and sensitivities get valued over others and, if we must choose, why should we choose to give priority to those responses informed by divisiveness, bigotry and ignorance?

Newt Ginrich’s spokesman told Salon in a phone interview today that building a mosque at Ground Zero “would be like putting a statue of Mussolini or Marx at Arlington National Cemetery.”

Asked what the 19th century German philosopher had ever done to America, Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler said: “Well let’s go with Lenin then.” Tyler explained that he was talking about Lenin, who died in 1924, as representative of the Cold War and ideologies opposed to America.

And here we actually get to the nub of the problem...[T]he issue here is whether or not we should be defining Islam, as such, as an “ideolog[y] opposed to America” comparable to the ideology that powered the Soviet Union. I say “no,” Team Newt says yes. That’s both repugnant and strategically disastrous.

Kevin Drum calls attention to some alarming recent scientific evidence of global warming's effects on our ecosystem. This one has to do with the health of the world's oceans, and it borders on cataclysmic:

So, anyway, as temperatures rise the plankton die. As plankton die, they suck up less carbon dioxide, thus warming the earth further. Which causes more plankton to die. Rinse and repeat. Oh, and along the way, all the fish die too.

Or maybe not. But this sure seems like a risk that we should all be taking a whole lot more seriously than we are. Unfortunately, conservatives are busy pretending that misbehavior at East Anglia means that global warming is a hoax, the Chinese are too busy catching up with the Americans to take any of this seriously, and you and I are convinced that we can't possibly afford a C-note increase in our electric bills as the price of taking action. As a result, maybe the oceans will die. Sorry about that, kids, but fixing it would have cost 2% of GDP and we decided you'd rather have that than have an ocean. You can thank us later.

The level of denial surrounding this crisis, and the lack of urgency, is so frustrating that the sheer weight of it acts as a kill switch of sorts for me. After watching the climate legislation peter out to a whimpering little end, it's hard to do anything other than look away at this point. We'll get what we deserve in the end.

This will be the bitterest, most pyrhhic "I told you so" that I'll ever get to utter. Fouler on the tongue than a thousand Iraq invasions. Hell, I'm afraid this will be the biggest in the history of humanity. At least to date.

I hope, with every fiber, that I am 100% wrong about all of this. The fear that I am not is daunting in its own right.

Adam Serwer highlights only the most recent encroachment on civil liberties undertaken by an executive branch that is, in this regard, as avaracious in its appetites with Democrats in charges as with Republicans:

Civil libertarians have been trying to add more restrictions to the FBI's National Security Letters since their use exploded after the attacks of September 11th. NSLs, which allow the government to obtain private records from commercial and financial institutions without a warrant as long as they deem them "relevant" to an investigation--with a gag order that stops companies from mentioning they've received them for good measure. Internal Justice Department reports have found NSLs are subject to widespread abuse. Last year, Senator Russ Feingold along with some Democrats in the House tried to rein in NSLs by requiring that the FBI show the information is somehow relevant to terrorism or espionage, but they were stymied by members of their own party.

Today, the Washington Post reports that the Obama administration wants Congress to expand the type of data that can be gained through the use of National Security Letters.

The administration wants to add just four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication.

This is on the heels...of the administration blocking reasonable restrictions on what has objectively been widespread misuse of NSLs...Having acted irresponsibly with the surveillance power it already has, and blocked reform that would have made the government more accountable, the Obama administration now wants even more power to violate the privacy rights of American citizens. When it comes to national security, there's nothing like failed government performance to justify giving the government more power.

There are two points worth emphasizing with respect to the above:

First, "probable cause," the standard required for law enforcement to get a warrant to gain access to these materials, is by no means an onerous threshold. It is quite low, and hardly a barrier.

Second, even if there is a pressing need to do away with the probable cause test (and it is unlikely that there is), there should at the very least be post hoc review to ensure that there has not been abuse of this rather extraordinary, plausibly unconstitutional, power of search and seizure.

Under the current NSL protocol, not only is external review and reprimand absent, but the companies that are being forced to turn over the applicable records are forbidden from making this fact public.

Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma said the new requirements could effectively end onshore natural gas production. He noted that some states already have hydrofracking safety and disclosure regulations but that making the requirements national would freeze the industry.

So, let's get this straight. Fictional 1960s right-wingers: oppose and fear fluoridation of water supplies. Actual 2010 right-wingers: vigorously defend pumping unknown chemicals into the ground. Though as a partial compensating factor, fracking may cause your tap water to catch fire, which could save you some money on your heating bills.

Look, I think natural gas is going to be a very important transition fuel that can decrease our dependence on foreign oil and reduce the use of coal. It burns clean, is far more carbon-friendly than coal, and has great and untapped potential as a transport fuel. I think hydraulic fracturing is likely to continue, and can probably be done in a fairly safe fashion, and will allow the US to tap enormous domestic gas supplies. But no sane person should oppose disclosure and safety rules intended to help keep hydro-fracking from damaging water supplies.

You have to hand it to the New York Times: they really know how to pick a perfect link-bait case study. This one is a classic:

Tremaine Edwards, 35, a former computer technician who had been unemployed for two years before he was hired in May by Gallery Guichard, a private gallery in Chicago. Mr. Edwards now earns $10 an hour, financed by the government, through the Put Illinois to Work program, to maintain the company’s Web site, curate exhibits and run gallery events.

The trick is to pick an example that isn't instantly, universally horrific - "Government Pays Criminals To Drown Kittens" - but instead, one that can be played straight for the whole story. Sure, the government spending money to subsidize failing private art galleries may sound outrageous to anyone who actually works for a living, but I'm sure for a key segment of the NYT's audience - the microscopic proportion of people who can afford to buy art at fancy galleries - this is a heartwarming tale of preserving cultural institutions.

So, well played, NYT. This case is an art gallery failing for lack of sales. Now, generally we don't want businesses to fail in a major recession, it's true. But the main reason we don't want that to happen is that their employees join the unemployed. Non-viable businesses failing is part of the normal economic process, even during a recession.

But this program - at least in this case - manages to both prop up failing businesses with direct subsidies and cause them to lay off their paid employees:

Mr. Guichard said he expected to keep three of the five new workers after the program ends. But the month before it began using the program, the gallery had four employees on its payroll (in addition to a few who worked hours as needed); none of these workers are still there. Three left on their own, said Mr. Guichard, in part because they were frustrated after their hours were cut and their income fluctuated.

But one — Mr. Guichard’s cousin Juan Rodriguez — was laid off.

Mr. Guichard said he wanted to keep Mr. Rodriguez, a 24-year-old, precocious curator and a “hard worker,” but decided not to because Mr. Rodriguez did not qualify for Put Illinois to Work.

Genius. Just think what this would do for the stock market if extended to the whole economy - the government could pay all private workers with borrowed money, saving business owners the fuss and bother of having to share any of the profits - and saving the rest of us from having to witness any filthy, worthless make-work projects paid for with government money, like renovating schools, building roads, or improving park facilities.

I have a friend who is one of the long term unemployed. He had a great job in a bio-tech field and went through one of that field's fairly routine layoffs expecting to get hired somewhere else right away. More than a year later, that hasn't happened.

Six months ago he was hired by a sketchy firm for about 1/3 of his previous earnings. They folded in a month. When that folded, he got a continuation of his previous claim.

Flash forward to the unemployment debacle of the last few weeks. California told him that the extension he was on was non funded and that he was required to apply for a new claim on the basis of the one month job instead of his many years of paying into the system from before. He duly applied. Now that the extension is funded, he tried to get that instead.

They wrote him "Dear Sir: You will no longer be on the federal extension since on 07-04-10 you
became eligible for a new claim. Federal and State regulations require your
extended benefits be stopped immediately. You will not be permitted to continue
collecting benefits on any extension. The check for week ending 07-10-10 for
$118.00 (your new weekly benefit amount) has been issued. Please allow 10 days
for delivery. Thank You. "

The new weekly benefit amount is of course based on his income during the one month of much lower pay, and the lack of income in the months before that. So it is about one quarter his previous benefit amount.

I know literally nothing about how the extensions are supposed to work. Does anyone know of a good guide I could refer him to? Is this how they are supposed to work, or is this one of those routine denials that they expect you to appeal?

From a policy perspective, it seems like a bad way to do the extensions, as it would seriously discourage looking for work if are at all worried that the company which may be hiring you is other than rock solid.

[permission to publish including the shockingly low benefit amount was received]

July 28, 2010

Let me start by saying that these are semi-informed questions that may have good answers already that I just haven't been able to find, or may have good answers when the full investigation is complete. But having followed things fairly closely over the spill period (mostly at The Oil Drum) there are certain events and decisions that I find hard to understand. I'm not expecting definitive answers here, but I'm noting this stuff because I think it will be interesting to see if the investigation asks or answers them. This is fairly long, so the rest is after the jump.